>Bank accounts were frozen for some people who donated money to support an illegal occupation of part of Canada's capital city, Ottawa.
Were they a designated criminal group at the time of donation? It seems strange to go after the donors rather than freezing the bank accounts of the recipients. The way I see it, there are only two possibilities:
1. the groups in question were declared criminal organizations, and therefore their bank accounts should be frozen and future donations should be blocked/banned
2. the groups in question weren't declared criminal organizations, and therefore it should be okay to donate to them.
>1. the groups in question were declared criminal organizations, and therefore their bank accounts should be frozen and future donations should be blocked/banned
Should criminals be denied all access to the financial system?
Even if the criminal is not receiving money for criminal cause?
they do, but that right also comes with responsibility, which by virtue of them committing a crime, they have to answer for. If they escape the authorities, freezing their financial accounts is not completely out of the ordinary, and forces them to confront the authorities.
So yes, they have the right to buy food, but also the obligation to answer for their crimes in an open court. Can't have one without the other.
Were they a designated criminal group at the time of donation? It seems strange to go after the donors rather than freezing the bank accounts of the recipients. The way I see it, there are only two possibilities:
1. the groups in question were declared criminal organizations, and therefore their bank accounts should be frozen and future donations should be blocked/banned
2. the groups in question weren't declared criminal organizations, and therefore it should be okay to donate to them.